MILWAUKEE — Guardian Credit Union is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging it improperly tracked visitors to its website and shared their personal and financial information with third-party technology companies without their consent, according to court filings in federal court.
The lawsuit, Gassman v. Guardian Credit Union, was filed Feb. 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin by plaintiff David Gassman, who seeks to represent a class of consumers who visited the credit union’s website.
According to the amended complaint summarized in subsequent court orders, Gassman alleges the $291-million Guardian CU used website tracking technologies, including code-based tracking tools commonly known as pixels, cookies and similar software, to collect personal and financial information from website visitors and transmit that information to third parties. The lawsuit contends the information was shared without adequate notice or consent.
Violation of Multiple Laws Alleged
The complaint alleges the tracking tools captured information generated during consumers’ interactions with the credit union’s website, including information entered into online forms and other browsing activity. The lawsuit asserts that the collection and sharing of that data violated a range of federal and state privacy, consumer protection and common-law statutes.
Guardian denied the allegations and moved to dismiss all 17 claims contained in the amended complaint. In a March 31 order, U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
The court dismissed eight of the 17 claims, including certain negligence, invasion-of-privacy and computer-access related allegations. However, Ludwig allowed nine claims to proceed, concluding that while some legal theories failed as a matter of law, the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts for several claims to survive the pleading stage.
What Judge Said
In his ruling, Ludwig wrote that Gassman alleges Guardian “tracked his Personal and Financial Information (PFI) during his visits to its website and then improperly shared the PFI with third parties.” The judge emphasized that the decision was limited to whether the claims were sufficiently pleaded and did not address whether the allegations ultimately could be proven.
The court’s order means the litigation will continue into discovery, where both sides will have an opportunity to develop evidence related to the website tracking practices at issue.
The case remains pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
